Stepping over the edge:
the implications of new technologies for education
Gráinne Conole
The Open University,
Draft chapter to be submitted for ‘Web 2.0-Based E-Learning:
Applying Social Informatics for Tertiary Teaching’
M.J.W. Lee and C. McLoughlin (Eds)
Introduction
The central focus of this chapter is a critique of the impact and future implications of new technologies on different aspects of educational systems – the people, organisational structures and processes, and learning and teaching practice. The strong title of this chapter ‘stepping over the edge’ is used to indicate that we are poised on the threshold of major change in education. I will argue that the implications of new technologies – social networking tools, mobile and smart devices, the drive towards near ubiquitous access - are profound and that they will impact on all aspects of educational institutions. These are exciting, but challenging times - the decisions we make as institutions and as individuals within the next few years will have far reaching consequences.
I will consider some of the key characteristics of the modern technologically enhanced environment and reflect on the implications of this for institutional structures and processes, individual roles and identities and the way in which learning is provided to and consumed by students. I will conclude with some suggestions for ways in which we can harness the characteristics of new technologies through providing some examples of current research we are engaged in, before concluding with a plea for a closer alignment of policy, research and practice to navigate through these complex and changing times.
Implications of new technologies
With a historic lens it is evident that there are key step changes in terms of technological development that have acted as catalytic triggers to pertubate the system. Cook et al. (2007) provide a useful overview of technological developments starting with the seminal paper ‘As we may think’ in 1945 by Bush with a description of the first system with hypertext capability and hence a forecaster of the internet. Following the timeline forward we can see other key triggers: the rise of the PC and individual ownership, the internet providing access to increasing quantities of digital information and new forms of electronic communication such as email, the uptake of institutional Learner Management Systems/Virtual Learning Environments (LMS/VLEs) and of course in the last few years the introduction of social networking and web 2.0 tools (Downes, 2006; Alexander, 2007; Anderson, 2007).
We may argue about the subtleties of which technologies to foreground, the point I am making is that for each you can see an associated set of ripples of change in terms of their impact on organisational structures, roles and individual practices. For example word possessors signalled the demise of the traditional secretarial role and email changed the way in which we communicate within organisational contexts (Conole et al., 2007). These changes in practice worked both at an individual level and at the level of organisational culture. The rise of new integrated learning environments to support students required institutions to take stock of their IT structures and in many cases resulted in them setting up cross institutional working groups to make decisions about which system to choose, and how to roll them out institutionally, along with appropriate development support for staff and students in their use of the system. Just when institutions were beginning to get ‘comfortable’ with learner management systems in place, along came web 2.0 technologies which raised fundamental issues about the balance of institutionally supported systems versus loosely, coupled systems. (See for example the blog posting ‘The VLE/LMS is dead’ and related posts in the blogosphere).
In this chapter I want to try and look beyond the current hype of web 2.0 and see if it is possible to identify an evolving trend in terms of the impact of the technologies – so that we can predict to some extent what might be the impact of the next wave of technologies. I will attempt to do this by abstracting out from the hype the essence of what new characteristics these technologies provide and categorise these against a previously derived taxonomy of tools and their associated functions. I will then consider how this impacts specifically on teaching and learning and consider how this might provide a useful framework for making sense of the constantly changing technological environment.
Tool classification
In previous work (Conole, 2005) I classified different tools according to how they were being used and discussed some of the tools within these categories which I felt had had the most significant impact on practice. The focus was not on the most technologically advanced, but rather on the tools that had most radically changed the way in which we work. Not surprisingly word, email and the internet emerged as the tools, which had made the most significant differences; changing the way people create and distribute information, altering organisational structures and associated roles with some roles disappearing and new professions emerging, and arguably even altering the very nature and worth of knowledge itself.
Table one lists the functional characteristics I put forward in that chapter and then provides a comparison of tools pre-2005 with web 2.0 tools and beyond. This time divide is somewhat arbitrary, but is meant mainly as an indicative marker to signal the emergence of web 2.0 tools. Some of the tools listed in the final column were around pre-2005 however, their impact on practice only started to occur to any significant extent post-2005. The intention is not to be comprehensive here, but rather to provide illustrative tools for each functional characteristic, and to consider what, if any, are the fundamental shifts and differences with new technologies.
Table 1: Changing tools sets against functionality
Function / Tools pre-2005 / Web 2.0 tools and beyondText and data manipulation / Word, spreadsheets, databases / Google docs,
Presentation and dissemination / Powerpoint, Pdfs, the html-based Web / Slideshare, Flickr, Youtube, Ajex technologies, flash animations
Data analysis / Quantitative tools (e.g. SPSS), qualitative tools (e.g. NIVO) / Tools to manipulate multi-media, enable annotation of data, and collaborative data analysis
Information seeking and handling / Search engines and portals / Google + wikepeadia, RSS feeds
Storing and managing information / Bibliographic tools (e.g. Endnote), e-journals, repositories, / Social bookmarking, blogs, wikis
Personal management / Online diary tools, to do lists / Online shared calendar services and to do lists (remember the milk)
Project management / Project manager / Collaborative working environments specifically designed to support project work (e.g. Sharepoint)
Communication / Email, discussion forums, chat / Audio and video conferencing (e.g. Skype and Elluminate), blogging, podcasts, microblogging (e.g. twitter)
Visualisation and brainstorming / Image manipulation tools (e.g. Photoshop), mindmapping tools / Gliffy, sense making tools (e.g. Compendium, Cohere)
Guidance and support / Wizards, toolkits / Pedagogical planners, specialised networks and online communities, social networking sites (Facebook, Linked in), immersive 3D-worlds (e.g. Secondlife)
Evaluation and assessment / e-Assessment tools, LMS/VLEs / Shift towards Personal Learning Environments, use of aggegators like iGoogle, pageflakes and netvibes
It is significant that many of the post 2005 tools are available as free, online services. What is also noticeable about these new tools is that many are multifaceted in nature. Their use in combination has led to a new paucity in the system, information can be transmitted seamlessly between systems and functionality created in one tool can be embedded or made available in another. For example the ‘embed’ function enables slideshare presentations or Youtube videos to be incorporated into blogs and run in situ in that environment. This enables users to create their own personal environment and to consume information at a location and in a format they choose/control. The emphasis on the social and collaborative characteristics of these new tools is very prominent, as is the shift from desktop tools to web services - emphasising the assumption that there is near ubiquitous access to the internet.
What we can see with this snapshot is the changing co-evolution of tools and users. Some tools remain as core, but aspects of their functionality change. For example word processing is a fundamental activity as a means of manipulating existing text or creating new text. But the introduction of online tools such as Google docs now combines some of the best features of word processors with the collaborative power of wikis; providing new ways in which people can construct knowledge. Sharing powerpoint slides on slideshare means that a greater audience has access to presentations, adding audio or video to these enhances the value and potentially the uptake of the presentation by others. Blogging and wikis change the way in which we create knowledge. Blogs can be used as a reflective tool, but also as a personal repository, they function simultaneously as personal tools and dissemination channels. Wikis enable group collaboration and co-construction of ideas. Kerawalla et al. (2008; 2009) undertook a detailed study of students’ use of blogs and identified a range of uses, tailored to individual needs. Similar patterns of appropriation and personalisation occur with other tools, so each individual will have their own set of tools, adapted to their own particular needs and interests. Other tools hint at new practices and ways of doing things – such as immersive 3-D worlds like second life or new tools for visualising and representing knowledge and creating connections and meaning, such as Compendium (Okada and Shum, forthcoming) and Cohere. The boundaries of individuals and communities blur through the interconnected nature of social networks and the blogosphere, with information being simultaneous transmitted through multiple channels to different communities and audiences.
Table 2 synthesises some of the characteristics that define these new technologies and lists their impact on practice (both positive and negative). McAndrew et al. (2008) consider some of the original web 2.0 characteristics (such as the long tail phenomenon, users adding value and aggregated network effects) and compares these against the way in which the OpenLearn (openlearn.open.ac.uk) Open Educational Resources (OERs) were developed and are being used. For example offering specialist subjects and enabling any one to be a potential user aligns with the long tail phenomenon, allowing users to contribute ideas and adapt content relates to the notion of users adding value. It would be useful to undertake a similar comparison of other web 2.0 projects or even use of specific tools.
Table 2: Characteristics of new technologies and associated impact on practice
Change / +ve impact / -ve impactFree resources / Specialised niche use / Inappropriate academic literacy skills
Ubiquitous access / Technology as core tool for learning / Narrower, but deeper digital divide
Many communication channels / Increase peer dialogue / Fragmentation of voice
Free tools / Personalisation / Lack of institutional control
Media rich representations / New forms of sense-making / Lack of new forms of digital literacy
Instant and multiple distribution / Information repurposed to meet different needs / No centralised repository of knowledge
User generated content / Variety and acknowledging individual contributions / Quality assurance issues
Social profiling / Knowledge sharing and community build / Inappropriate descriptions and use of personal information for other purposes
Implications
In this section I want to consider some of the implications of these new technologies and the shifting patterns of use – for users, infrastructures and pedagogy. I will consider the impact on different individuals, focussing on students, teachers and support staff, but will also argue that the boundaries between these roles is blurring as users adopt multiple and complex identities in the digital environment. I will then discuss the impact on infrastructures, considering this from both a technological and organisational perspective. Finally, I will suggest how this impacts on the nature of learning – how it is delivered and supported and what new forms of pedagogy might be developing as a result.
Students are changing: in terms of how they interact with technologies and use them to support their learning. This is the overarching finding from a growing body of empirical research, which is looking at how students’ are using technologies (Conole et al., 2008; Conole, 2008; ECAR, 2007; Kennedy et al. 2006; Baird and Mercedes, 2006). This includes the research outputs of a learner experience programme funded by the JISC in the UK,[1] surveys of the use of technologies carried out in the States, Australia, and Hong Kong, as well as a wider body of research exploring the notion of the ‘net generation’. A note of caution needs to be struck however, as this evidence is primarily from a western perspective and the experiences of those in developing countries are likely to be fundamentally different. However with this caveat the evidence does point to significant changes, which are likely to be mirrored in the longer term across the board. Indeed there is evidence to indicate that rather than following the trajectory of technological developments adopted by western countries, some developing countries leap frog the use of technologies – skipping a technology generation. A good example of this is the way in which mobile technologies are being used extensively across Africa. An international comparison of e-learning policy and developments provides a valuable snapshot of the issues faced by different countries (Carr-Chellman, 2005) and a more recent handbook of e-learning research provides case studies of research and development activities from around the globe (Andrews and Haythorthwaite, 2007).
The evidence of the empirical data is compelling. Students see technologies as core tools for learning, PC and laptop ownership is high, broadband connectivity in the home the norm. They complement PC/laptop ownership with a range of mobile devices – phones and mp3 players being the most common. They use a variety of tools and resources to support their learning, appropriating these tools to their own personal preferred styles of communication and ways of learning. The internet is their primary information resource; particularly through Google and Wikipeadia, but also through suggestions from peer networks. Uptake of social networking tools is rising rapidly, from participation in social networks like facebook to user-generation of content via blogs, wikis and publishing sites such as Youtube. Gaming is a key leisure activity with many participating in online, global sites such as World of Warcraft. Just as some technologies are on the rise, others are in decline – TV and email are being replaced by online, on-demand video and social networking tools such as Skype and Twitter.
Some are arguing that the way in which these students learn is different – that they are used to small, bite size chunks of information, multi-modal and multi-faceted representation, that they learn through experiential interaction, rather than through guided step by step instruction. However others argue that despite the fact that they have grown up immersed in these technologies, that they lack the skills necessary to harness these for academic purposes – they may know how to navigate the internet to find information but don’t have the skills to critical evaluate resources and assess their academic value. Michael Wesch encapsulates many aspects of today’s students through his engaging YouTube videos (the machine is Us/ing us[2] and a vision of students today[3]) and through his own use of technologies in his classroom to teach digital ethnography.[4]
In contrast to students, the change in teachers is less radical (Ertmer, P.A., 2005). Yes an increasing number of teachers are using technologies to support both their teaching and research. But use of new technologies is far from ubiquitous and in many instances is still in the realms of the innovators and early adopters. Some are engaging in the blogosphere and participating in communities of interest through social networking tools such as ning, however overall these space are still dominated by those with an interest in the technologies themselves, rather than mainstream academics. This is despite fairly significant investment in promoting innovations in the use of technologies in a number of countries.
So why is there such a disjuncture between student use of the technologies and academic use? To label it simply as a generational effect is too simplistic. More fundamental is the core values of the teachers and the cultural context within which they work. Research is still privileged over teaching and so for many investing the time to experiment with new technologies and apply them to their practice is not worth it. In addition there is a net and peer effect with many of the social tools – the students are in the networks because so are their friends. The same is not true for academics. Participation in the blogosphere or via microblogging services such as twitter or immersion in 3D-worlds such as second life, only have true value if others are contributing and if what they are saying is of interest to you as an individual, i.e. if it adds value to your practice. Academics currently struggle to see the practical benefits of these tools, being overwhelmed by the sheer quantity and potential possibilities and intimidated by the fact that incorporation of these new approaches will require a fundamental change in their role as ‘teacher’ and associated lose of authority.